the presiding officer: without objection. [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. vincent briccetti to be the united states district judge of new york is confirmed. the question is on the nomination of john kronstadt. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: any senator voted, any senator wish to change his or her vote? on this vote, there are 96 in favor, zero opposed. confirmation on the -- the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is

considered made and laid upon the table, the president will be immediately be notified of the senate's actions and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there are 12 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet. they've been approved by senator mcconnell and me. i would, therefore, ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that thee requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 today, the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 5:00 p.m. today with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 2:15, the senator from wisconsin, senator johnson, be recognized for up to 20 minutes during this morning business time for the purpose of giving his maiden speech. further, that at 5:00 p.m., i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i've spoken to my counterpart, senator mcconnell, this morning. we hope to get an agreement on a way to move forward on the small business bill. there are just a few issues

outstanding and we'd really like to get that done and we're going to do our utmost to get that agreement so we can complete that bill at the earliest possible date. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. >> senate taking a break now so lawmakers can attend their weekly party caucus luncheons. the senate worked on a pair of judicial nomination this is morning. they remain poised to take up the temporary spending measure agreed late friday. we'll have more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down at 2:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. we've got more live events coming up for you on the c-span networks. the senate environment committee looks at u.s. nuclear safety later today. the committee will hear from epa chief lisa jackson among other witnesses. you can watch that live at

2:45 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. and later debate among candidates, conservative leaders and prime minister stephen harper. that gets underway at 7:00 p.m. eastern. it is live on c-span3. and tomorrow, president obama is scheduled to address the nation. he will lay out his fiscal policy in light of the recent congressional negotiations on spending and the budget. that is supposed to take place tomorrow and we'll update you to the exact time when the white house announces it. and we'll have that live for you when it happens on c-span3.

>> now, former white house senior advisor david axelrod. he recently discussed his experiencing in the white house. he talks about the health care law, guantanamo detentions, the absence of the youth vote during the 2010 elections and his campaign work for chicago mayor richard daley and former representatives rahm emanuel and rod blagojevich. david axelrod left his white house position earlier this year to help lead the president's re-election campaign at his chicago headquarters. he gave these remarks during an interview with columnist james warren. from the city club of chicago, it is about 45 minutes. >> the president's debt commission came out with a very clear set of policy proposals including substantial cuts serious changes in entitlements but the obama budget reflects

virtually none, none of those commission recommendations. why? >> well, first of all it doesn't represent none of them. i think there were a number that have been adopted but there is no doubt there is a larger discussion to be had and the president has said that he said we have to do this in a sequential a. way. let's get last year's budget business done. let's have a discussion about 2012 and then let's have a discussion about some of these larger issues. right now we're fighting over 12% of the budget. that is all the domestic discretionary budget is. that leaves 88% of the budget to be discussed. if you're going to solve this in the long term that has to be part of the discussion. that is why he appointed a deficit commission. that was his initiative. they were working at his behest and that is the starting point for a discussion and we're going to have that discussion moving forward. these are difficult issues. if they weren't difficult we

would have been able to solve them long ago and it will require republicans and democrats sitting down together in good faith and talking about them and not trying to score political points off of them and i expect that conversation will happen. >> republicans and tea party obviously score ad lot of political points on health care. there's really no evidence yet that the law has reduced costs. when will americans see changes in a very tangible way that reshapes their views? >> well first of all, jim, there are millions of americans who are seeing changes in tangible ways right now. there are young people insured on their parent's insurance up to the age 26 hoe wouldn't have been. they are getting a better break on their prescription, on their prescription drugs. there are new strictures against some overreaches by

insurance companies in terms of limits that they can put on insurance. so you don't have this paradoxical situation where your insurance is great until you get sick and then you can't use it because the insurance company won't allow it. so there are a series of ways in which people, millions and millions of people are experiencing this health care plan right now but it's going to be 2014 before it is fully implemented. that is when these health care exchangeses are set up in which people are going to be able, who can't get insurance now are going to go in and get insurance on a competitive basis at a price they can afford. and so, you know, the answer to your question is, we need to fully implement this program. we also have to begin to encourage and i see my friend who is here on the board of mt. sinai hospital. she can appreciate it. we have to encourage best practices all over the country that will reduce costs, you know, by,

automating medical records, for example. so that we're not repeating tests. simple things that, that we can do. that we know will, will reduce costs but that takes time to implement. and we have to see it through. >> bread and butter political question. many youth who voted for obama were nowhere to be seen during the midterms. meanwhile there seems to be a lot of pretty interesting stuff embedded in new census data. growth of latino populations. some of it in places you, unexpectedly won in '08 and i'm thinking virginia, indiana, north carolina, colorado, places that have now by and large have gone republican. so, what about the census data? what about that youth vote that didn't really come back last november? >> well there is no question what you're say something true. in 2008 people under 29 represented 18% of the total

vote. it was 12% in 2010. the minority vote in 2008 was 26% of the total. it was 22% in 2010. and some of that had to do with the fact that the president wasn't on the ballot and people came out to vote for the president in 2008. he wasn't on the ballot in 2010. some of it has to do with the reality of governance. you know, i think the president stirred great enthusiasm in 2008 and great sense of hope and expectation. though everywhere he went he said change is not easy. change will take time. it will take, you know, things will not happen overnight. but nonetheless, we've gone through a terribly difficult time in our country because of the recession. we've gone through continued battles in washington. one of the things that we hoped for is to overcome that kind of politics and we

still want to overcome that kind of politics and i think that's wearing on people. that had an impact. i do sense though, we got a tremendous reaction to the announcement that the president had filed his papers for re-election. tremendous grassroots reaction, you know, we got it online. it was expressed in a lot of different ways including small dollar donations and i think there is a real sense on the part of people who maybe different participate in 2010 that there are real stakes in 2012. certainly the way some of these republicans have based in the states and at the national level has reminded people that there are stakes to elections. and that we have to participate. robert kennedy said the future isn't a gift, it is an achievement. that means we have to keep working at it. it is not easy. i think people get that and i'm looking forward, one. reasons we started as early

as we did, we wanted to reengage and mobilize people. in terms of the demographics of these states, you're absolutely right. we all saw the census. we're becoming a much more diverse country and some of the states you mentioned, virginia, north carolina, arizona, which is a state we didn't win, nevada, you know, you see a, florida, you see big growth, particularly in the hispanic population in those states. and that, you know that will be a factor moving forward. doesn't mean those voters are enare sterd. that doesn't mean they will participate. that is a task that lies ahead but there is no doubt that we're becoming a more diverse country. that is going to have an impact on our politics. >> before i get to a little bit of a lightning round, speak briefly about your own sort of on-the-job training at the white house, lessons learned. stuff that you now realized you didn't truly get when you walked in at the first day. as sophisticated as you were,

as many issues you mulled over during the campaign. presumably you didn't think one day you would be, guys would be owning gm and chrysler, aig. >> let me point out we don't own gm. that is malicious rumor. >> you didn't know you would sort of be, kind of in charge for a bit and then having to figure out a way to get out. >> don't forget, pirates, pandemics, a lot of things you never expected to deal with. give an example or two of kind of real steep learning curves for you. >> first, as how sophisticated you and so on. you realize how unsophisticated you are when you arrive there when you work for the president and you are the president, you have to deal with everything. you can't deal with one thing. the white house is filled with experts on different subjects but the president has to be on top of all of the subjects and those who work for him have to try to keep up. i have to tell you, and i'm talking to a hometown crowd,

so this isn't, this probably won't be shocking to you but, there wasn't, there wasn't a day that i was there, this is an aside, i will get to your question. there wasn't a day that i was there that i wasn't, not just proud to work for barack obama but grateful that he was there because these problems are so complicated. he always says if it is easy it never gets to me. i mean they're so complicated. they're so complicated. and they, and what's remarkable was to watch the way he worked through these issues in a thoughtful way. not in a dogmatic way. always asking the right questions. and making judgements that he thought were best for the country. never kind of losing his footing. it was remarkable because what gets thrown at you is just extraordinary. what i learned is how much i didn't know. i mean, i know more about,

economics. i know more about pandemics. i know more about deep sea oil drilling, sadly, than i ever thought i would. every single, one of the great things about working in the white house and one of the daunting things that every single day you're confronting things that are new in some ways. that you haven't thought about deeply before. and you are pushed to learn about them and learn about them quickly and so, you know, it's big. on this issue of, it's a great experience i should say. of course it's big. the, on this issue of stuff that you have to deal with, you know there were days, particularly at the beginning, when each day we were grappling with what was the possibility of at another depression and that's what larry summers and the economic guys were telling us, there is a one in three chance we could

slide into a depression. which is something you never ever anticipated hearing. you thought that was part of history. and here you are, you're dealing with that. on top of that you overlay the wars. you, you overlay things like pandemics. and one day i just said to the president, boy, i wonder what it would be like to be here in good times. he smiled and patted me on the back and said, don't kid yourself, if things were good we wouldn't have gotten the job. [laughter] >> speaking about things you confronted, this is what i said, a lightning round and make this short and sweet. >> as you can see, that is not my forte. >> most single interesting international figure you've now met? >> you know, i think i may have mentioned to you once that i would travel to russia with the president and he was meeting with the

prime minister putin and the meeting went long. and so they said, they asked me to sit with mikhail gorbachev who the president was supposed to be meeting with, until the president got there. so i spent 45 minutes with him and that was an extraordinary experience. just understanding the role he played in history. and then hearing his stories, particularly about ronald reagan. one of the most interesting and somewhat poignant stories, he really liked reagan. he had affection for him. he started off thinking he was an imbecile and came to change his view. and i know reagan started off thinking that i was a menace and he changed his point of view. but he said he would sit and in bilateral meetings with reagan and george shultz would be sitting next to reagan as secretary of state and he said every once in a while reagan would go off on kind of a rhetorical flight of fancy and bush, i'm sorry, schultz would lightly place his hand on reagan's hand

and reagan would stop speaking. and then, so, it was, but you know, he talked a lot about the great things they were able to do together and it was inspiring. and he was a really, interesting, interesting guy. so i have met a lot of fascinating people but in terms of foreign leaders, that was, that was really interesting moment. >> truly a pedestrian question. what's the neatest, like high-tech benefit being at the white house or traveling with the president? i mean, you get like to sneak into friends bank accounts under the guise of national security? how good is the phone reception on air force one? >> yeah. >> what -- >> well, on that subject i think i owe you a few thousand dollars. i was a little short. [laughter] no, i, we don't sneak into people's bank accounts. but it is kind of, obviously air force one is air force

one but the ability to reach anybody in the world, you know, if you pick up the phone and say i want to talk to somebody, they will find that person and that is, that's kind of a benefit. that's a benefit. [laughter] but you know, the, when you're in the white house you can, any information you want you can get, you know, fairly quickly and that's, and you know, with events breaking all over the world that's not just interesting but valuable. >> since we're just among friends and no one is going to repeat anything here. >> we are among friends. i look around this room and i see people, like this is your life for me. i see, i met bernie judge back in the corner over there was my first city editor at "the chicago tribune." i always say i went to college at university of chicago and i was educated at "the chicago

tribune" and bernie was one of the great educators for me. but i can point to people all over this room who meant something to me in my life. so we really are among friends. i can't speak for the c-span people. >> i'll deal with them. >> okay. >> the most exasperating member ever congress you met. [laughter] >> this is intelligence test, right? i'm obviously not going to answer that question but i -- [laughter] >> in case you don't recognize an evasion when you see it. >> but what i, what i will say is this. the world of politics and certainly congress divides itself into two categories. people who run for office because they want to do something and people who run for office because they want to be something. and the second group is more numerous than the first.

and there is, and there was a, there is a disconnect sometimes because of that. because if you your mission is to try and get something accomplished and it involves expending political currency to do it and this president has proven time and again he is willing to do that, there are those who say, that's nuts. you know, this isn't polling well. i mean i went into the president many times with polling numbers on things that we were working on that were not very encouraging. if you just did connect the do the kind of decision-making you would say, we're not going to do this. thank god for the country, that is not how he operates. but when i went in, i will give you an example which was the auto, which was the auto intervention. people were, people were, you know, not for that. even in the state of michigan people weren't for it. they weren't for it because they felt that for decade

the american automakers did not make the kind of decisions they should have in order to make their industries competitive and so why should they get bailed out from their own mistakes? on the other hand, we were sitting in the middle of a very deep recession. two of the big three automakers disappeared, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs would disappear with them. not just their workers but the ancillary industries and small businesses that supported the dealerships and so on. and you know, the president said look, i appreciate that but this, if they're willing to rationalize their businesses and make themselves competitive in the 21st century we ought to help them do it because it would be a tremendous blow to a lot of communities and to the country to lose them. now you have seen gm has had its most productive year since 1999. they have added tens of thousands of workers. and it's a whole different picture. but had he done what some members of congress would

have suggested, he would have let it go because it wasn't on first glance good politics to do what he did. so, that's, my exasperation is with those who have a horizon line of 24 hours or 48 hours who are absorbed with the polling of the moment or cable tv chatter of the moment and are guided in their decision-making by that because their principle concern is to get reelected and not to move the country forward. and there are those, on both sides of the aisle, frankly who are subject to that. >> let me then, really play devil's advocate here and argue, in the form of a question, about what seems from afar to look like a president bowing to public opinion and that involves guantanamo. the president said he would close it during the campaign. said he would close it a

couple days of after the inauguration. for those who have sort of forgotten about it, there are guys on guantanamo, been there nine years not charged with any offense. there are at least 75 people who the justice department concedes it has no evidence against. they will never come to trial and they're just sitting there on guantanamo. there are about 170 something left there right now. stuck. now the president clearly got shafted in a way as the republicans threw in an amendment to the defense authorization bill that says basically not one dime of your money can be spent moving any of those guys. so they're stuck. but why wasn't that something that he, former usc law professor, who knows this is morally outrageous, why didn't he say, no, i ain't going to sign that because those guys got to get out of there? >> well, let me say a number of things about that.

first of all, there is this institution as you mentioned called the united states congress and under our system they have some authority here. and they have exercised that authority and they have exercised it, you know in contravention of the pleas that the president and others have made. we wanted to close guantanamo because it was, and remains a, a hindrance to what we're trying to accomplish overseas. it is a negative symbol, and in that sense, it doesn't enhance our safety. it detracts from it. and that's why we wanted to move the remaining prisoners from guantanamo to thompson, illinois, into another facility there. that is, and the united states congress has blocked that. and, has made, made it more

difficult in terms of where the venues in which these folks are going to be, are going to be tried. but i will say, jim, so we're pre described from it. so then it become as the maer of, do you try to, for example, khalid sheikh mohammed, who masterminded, allegedly masterminded the 9/11 massacre, or do you, or do you just sit in a holding pattern, a stalemate and not give justice to those who have lost their loved ones, who lost their loved ones in that, in that catastrophe and that, in that crime? so the administration and the justice department decided to move forward. but there's a qualitative difference between where we were in january of 2009 and where we are today. we didn't even have case records for most of the people in guantanamo.

it took months and months and months just to reconstruct who they were, why they were there, what the appropriate disposition of them should be. you know, that, so we went through that process. some of them have been, have been transferred overseas. others are in the process of being charged and tried. and there is this category of people who are there who, there is not evidence to try them but there is plenty of ample evidence that they represent a threat to the country and how to deal with those has been a very, those people are very thorny issue and the president and the justice department have tried to develop a protocol for dealing with that that gives them some form of review. so these are difficult issues that we walked into and have to try and resolve and have to try and resolve it in the real world. the president is not a

university of chicago law professor. he is president of the united states and he has to deal with the many challenges that this poses. he has to do it consistent with our constitution and our values and our constitution includes the separation of powers. so, he is doing best he can with a very difficult situation. >> let me take you back to -- >> that was "the lightning round". >> no, no, one more in the lightning round. the last one is, -- >> try and do better. >> as much as frequently -- >> you can't ask questions like that in the lightning round? that is like if you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? that is not, tell me about guantanamo. [laughter] >> he is quickly -- [applause] here i am defensive about lack of nuance. sorry. okay, for the next hour and a half could you just tell

us -- >> cancel your afternoon. >> as much as you have brought up the d.c. particularly media echo chamber, nevertheless were there lots of times sitting in your office you couldn't avoid putting on your jacket and whether it was you going out in front of a camera real quickly or getting somebody else in front of a camera, that it just became a reality of your life, even when you knew, more than maybe anything else in the country outside the west wing that the story was bs? >> that's a lightning round question? >> i said, hour and a half. >> oh this is hour and a half question. that is question that involves more thought than i can give on this stage. i don't, if you're asking me if i went out and, if i was -- people on television. >> no. when there was something you knew was. not the same -- >> me say this about that.

there was no doubt, one of the hardest thing among many hard things about the presidency, at least if you're in the seat i was sitting, in, is discerning what is real and what is not real. every day is election day in washington. every day and every single day something crops up and everybody says this is going to define the administration. i mean how many days did we go through last spring after the oil leak where we were told, this is the defining issue of the obama presidency. obama's katrina. this will, you know, and, how many people here, how many of you were talking about that over there at your lunch today? how many people are talking about that today? it was important. and for the people down there it was a terrible thing. i don't minimize it but it is not the defining issue of the presidency and every single day you can find someone writing about something and saying this is the defining issue of the

presidency. what we tried to do sometimes more successfully than others is to focus on things that really mattered to people and to try and discern what was real from what was washington kind of cable fluff. . . real from what is washington cable fluff. but i cannot say we were always successful. you do get drawn in and that's why it was a relief in some ways to come back here where people are talking about real, tangible things that affect their lives. in many ways, they find the washington conversation and abstraction. >> let me talk about the true defining issue of his presidency. he has a history of avoiding traps that life sets out for him. huge family dysfunction, and particularly with his dad, being black in america, coming out of

the what some would see as the ethically suspect world of chicago politics, -- >> you better come to that question because you are insulting everybody in this room. [laughter] [applause] i have some friends in the u.s. attorney's office. they will back me up. >> he has navigated his way around a lot of potential land mines. afghanistan, iraq, libya -- is war potentially though one trap he cannot ultimately avoid? >> you are asking me to put in a political context what fundamentally is a larger question about the president of the united states. i think most americans are weary

of war. it has been costly in terms of life and treasurer. and yet they also feel strongly they need to do what we can to protect our own security and the president needs to balance these things. he ran for office promising to end the war in iraq. by the end of the year, we will have our troops home. we have 100,000 home already. he ran saying there was no strategy in afghanistan, that we had to be more aggressive dealing with al qaeda on the border between afghanistan and pakistan and he has done that. he did it promising we would surge up and begin a process of reducing forces in the summer. i am confident he will do that. as for libya, everybody wants to

generalize what is the principaleach of these situatioe different and challenging. in libya, we were faced with a situation of an impending potential genocide in a country that was between egypt and tunisia. fragile democratic movements were taking hold. we had the arab elite in our -- allies united in the call for action. we acted in a limited way to prevent what could have been a genocide. it was not an easy call. the president did a great job of explaining his reasoning in that

speech. i do not know that he views these things as a trap so much as the nature of a complex and challenging world in which you have to evaluate every situation and we act in a thoughtful, intelligent way. that is what he has tried to do. >> let's go distinctly local. rod blagojevich. why did you help him become a congressman, but not the governor? >> i helped them become a congressman because i thought he would be a good congressman and a good representative for that district. i did not see in him the qualities for executive leadership. i was surprised when he came to me and said he wanted to run for governor.

he could not articulate for me why. it goes back to the question of people who want to do something and folks who want to be something. when you are running for an office like that, you should know what you want to do. you should know why you are doing it. it cannot be just that it is cool being governor. i felt that i could not deal with that program. i told him that. that was the end of our relationship in many ways. i do not want to go on because i think what happened with him -- whether it was his own making or not -- is a tragic story. it has been tragic for his family and for the state. i do not want to pile on. i had a strong sense, knowing him as i did, it was not going to be a good story.

sadly, that turned out to be the case. >> for those who do not remember, you were an important player in the initial mayoral victory in 1989. how you compare mayor daley of 1989 to rahm emanuel? intellectually, stylistically? >> first of all, let's say times were different. before i get to the personalities, it is important to note -- at the city club of chicago, it is an inappropriate place to say, there are some political relationships i have had that i will be proud of for the rest of my life. obviously, the president is one of them. another is mayor daley. i remember back in 1989 and many , how raciallyell

divided the city was at the time and incapable of doing the things that were necessary to deal with challenges. it was a difficult time for our city. you can see evidence of daily's -- of mayor daley's achievements in the city. what he should feel good about and what we should celebrate is what he did to put this city back together in 1989. rich daley is a unique character. he eats and lives and breathes chicago. he came to the office that way. he never had any of aspiration. he was not looking to be governor or senator or anything

else. he had this understanding. he knows this and he grew up with this stuff. he understood this city at a granular level. he understood every block of the city. he understood the neighborhoods. he has a genius for cities generally. rahm emanuel as a genius for government. he has a genius or politics. i think that is going to serve him well. i have been impressed with the way he has handled him during -- had limbs of during the election and since the election. he had the same drive that mayor daley has. he is a big, strong, larger- than-life personality that can move the city forward. they are similar in that way. one big difference between rahm emanuel is that he is not a

outgoing personality. rich daley e rahm is not shy. [laughter] i think he is a worthy successor to one of the great mayors in the city and the country. >> what do you think would be a smart way for rahm emanuel to go about things early on? is it important to do something big early as a counterpart to health care? what might you suggest would be a smart way? >> it is not like he is painting on a blank tableau. he has some big challenges. they are not going to wait. they require action and they require action quickly. we have fiscal challenges that have to be addressed.

i have no doubt he is going to address them. secondly, we all know that the future of this city and this country press -- rests in how we handle public education. rahm emanuel has a strong feeling about that. we elite to the children and this committee to make sure -- to theexp-- we owe it children and to this city to make sure that they get a good education. he is going to make sure of that. we need a safe city. there are pockets of violence that affects young people that have to be addressed. he identified these areas during the campaign. i do not think it was rhetorical. it was a gut sense on his part on what we need to move the city will work. i am sure he will do some things in terms of bringing stuff to

the city that will be important. when rahm emanuel wants to do something? i will tell you a story about my friend. he does not like me telling the story, but he does not watch c- span. [laughter] so i will tell it. when my wife susan was pregnant with our second child, michael, rahm emanuel was working for illinois public action. they helped elect a fellow many of you know. lane evans in west illinois. it was quite a victory. it democrat in 100 years to win in this west illinois district. rahm emanuel what to get some credit for his organization for having played a big role. he called me and then he called me and then he called me.

he kept calling me. mercifully, susan went into labor and i went into the hospital -- i went to the hospital. we are in the recovery from and the phone rings. i picked it up. david? rahm emanuel. i just needed to know how it went. how did it go? i said, great. i have a new son. he said, that is great. there are a few minutes of silence. he says, when do you think you will be back at work? i will tell you, anything this city needs, there will never be a more energetic advocate for the interests of this city, with business, with other levels of government. no one will be safe from his desire for the city. i think the city will profit from it. >> a couple more things before we finish off. there is a malady known as the atomic saber.

it -- not as potomac fever. it makes it difficult -- known as potomac fever. it makes it difficult for people to leave washington, d.c. it has got to be so much more difficult for people who have been in the west wing. presumably, you can pick up the phone and call anyone you want at any time, the president, bill daley. are you having any sort of withdrawal problems? not seen exactly who just went down the hall to the oval office, which no one else in the world would know. not knowing exactly who the president was on the phone within minutes ago. talk about that. >> anybody who tells you

otherwise is lying. it is an are caught. it is energizing to be in the nerve center of the world and to be in that information loop. i love my colleagues there, including the president. to be in such proximity and to work with him on a day to day basis was great. i refer to myself when i was in washington as a chicagoan on assignment. i knew i was coming home to a real place. i did it is important. i always see about -- say about washington what my mother said to me when i was a child. i love you, but i hate the things you do. [laughter] i love the people. there are many great friends and associations i have in washington. i do not like the pathology of

the town. i love being here in a p lace that is healthier and more real. i miss that. there is with a drawl -- withdrawal. i want to say one thing because we are finishing up. we have challenges in the country and we are all aware of it. i always think about this experience i had when i think about all of the great experiences i had working for the president. one that stand out in my mind was in july of 2009. i traveled with the president to russia. when we arrived, there was a ceremony. my father was an immigrant from eastern europe. his family spent four years trying to get to america because they believed this was the place they could practice their faith really and they could pursue

their dreams. now here i am standing with the president of the united states watching the russian military band played our national anthem. i stood there with my hand over my heart and i had tears in my eyes. it was the night before what would have been my thought the's 99th birthday.r's what a testament of his faith in this country that his son would return at the side of the president of the united states. we have so much that we take for granted that is worth fighting for. that is a big take away for me from this experience. i feel better about our country that i did going in. [applause]

>> i had a couple more questions. we will do the lightning round later. >> do we have time? >> it is 130 p m i am short david will want to stay and enter -- is 1:30 p.m. i am short-dated will want to stay and answer more questions -- i am sure david will want to stay and answer more questions. >> two fast one. real quick. when are you going to write your book? >> i am busy right now. i have a task ahead of me and i will devote myself to its.

that is to see to it that our friend gets reelected. [applause] >> for the record, we should explain to the c-span audience that it is not a belligerent crowds or mr. david axelrod our present obama. >> a woman told me in 1992 that barack obama would be president of the united states sunday. >> stand up. >> if you are going to be tracked take betty lou. >> this has been a great experience. why don't we end this by banking david and -- by thanking david and jim for an incredible time. [applause] david and jim, wait a minute. we are not done yet.

nice try. we have two gift certificates. this is big, jim. one goes to ellie abrams. the other one goes to judy williams. and for you guys, because you are no longer in office -- congratulations. [various crow [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> senators taking a break now so lawmakers can attend weekly caucus party lunches. earlier senators approved a pair of judicial nominations, and the senate is expected back at 2:15 p.m. eastern for general speeches and stands poised to consider the spending and budget agreement reached late friday night. more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down at 2:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span c-span2. >> and we've got more live events coming up on the c-span networks. the senate environment committee looks at u.s. nuclear safety later today. the committee will hear from epa chief lisa jackson, and you can watch that live at 2:45 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. and later a debate among canada's conservative leaders and prime minister stephen

harper. that gets underway at 7 p.m. eastern, and it's also live on c-span3. tomorrow president obama will address the nation to lay out his fiscal policy in light of the recent congressional negotiations on spending and the budget. it's scheduled to take place tomorrow afternoon at 1:35 eastern, and we'll have that live for you when it happens on c-span3. >> this year's student cam competition asked tiewnts from -- students from across the country to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. today's third prize winner addressed an issue that better helped them understand the role of the federal government. ♪ >> but, i mean, if they're really in feed of help, i don't think it's a problem for them to stand there. it's not forcing people to give money. if you want to help, you can

help. >> i don't really feel bad for them because it's an honest job, and i feel bad for them, but if they're just doing it because it's easy and they don't have to work very hard, then i think it's kind of ridiculous. >> there is welfare, and i think that some people take advantage of that, but a lot of people actually do need help, and and there's always food and shelters and places that they can sleep. i don't think there's enough of them, but there are places. ♪ >> every day while driving to school i pass a stranger near the community mall. each day he wakes up, trudges half a mile to his corner and stands in the same place all day. this stranger is familiar to everyone but known to no one. is there nothing being done to end this tragedy? nothing to help the homeless?

♪ >> found that nearly six million low-income households pay more than half their monthly income for represent or live in severely substandard housing. our recently-released annual homeless assessment report found that on any given night in america, more than 640,000 men, women and children are without housing. ♪ >> hi, i'm michelle, and i'm the assistant coordinator of the food shelf, and i'll give you a quick tour of our facility. this is kind of our stocking room in here where we have our overflow of foods that we give out for clients. >> my name is kathy, i'm the coordinator of the mahtomedi food shelf. our food shelf is very blessed

because this community is so extremely supportive. i mean, there are food shelves that are struggling to keep food on the shelf, and we always seem to be able to keep up with demand with no problem. >> we try to give everyone approximately a week's worth of groceries once a month. the average family of four probably receives 6-8 bags of groceries. >> people in crisis can call 211, and be they have a database that's national, i mean, can get a multitude of information. it used to be called first call for help which is exactly what they should do when they find themselves all of a sudden in the situation where they don't have a job, or they're close to losing their house or something, they can call 211 and it gives them the information they need. >> the shelf might look pretty full right now, but if we did not take one more donation, this would be gone in a week.

♪ >> food shelves like this one are put in place to help those just like the stranger i see on the corner. a stranger who is a stranger no more. ♪ >> okay, i'm brad with. i've been homeless, now, for almost five and a half years. it's really tough here in minnesota, but there's nice people. like, even the guy that i'm doing this documentary for that they say could he give, you give twice as good back. so i'm hoping for someday there either to land a job or do whatever i have to do to survive. the way the economy is. and it's tough out here. i don't drink, so it ain't out here for alcohol or drugs.

it's -- i hope it gets better for me. i've been sober now for almost ten years, and a lot's changed except for no work. and i've even went to companies and asked if i could go outside and pick up cigarette butts for, like, $3 an hour, and they didn't laugh at ya. the federal government won't give you loans for any assistance or anything because i'm a male. they said it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be labeled to just females with kids, it should be anybody. and prove a point to where help 'em for, like, let's say a month, and if they mess it up or if they're just using the system or something, then i could see interviewing 'em and see that nothing's changed because they just want the handout part. they won't even, they just, they won't say it straight up, and

that's the way it is, you know? it's males. >> although brad made it seem the federal government did nothing to assist the homeless, there are, in fact, assistance out there. >> they don't all receive federal assistance. there are a lot of mission-based shelters and so forth that don't, but the federal government does provide a pretty sizable amount of money, over $2 billion a year, just for shelters, transitional housing and permanent supportive house, to serve people with disabilities in permanent housing and for emergency assistance to people. so there's an extensive network, over 40,000 programs, to assist homeless people in the country. >> i spoke with a woman who works for one of these programs. this shelter would have welcomed brad. >> we help the homeless, anything from mental health to housing. and the worst thing we have,

now, you need to tape this, that we have down here is the young people. 18 years old sleeping down here. innot going to school, not doing anything. >> the individuals out here are thankful for many assistance programs provided for them. the one thing the shelter cannot provide is employment. quincy sold everything he had to move from mississippi to minnesota for a job. soon after, the downfall of the economy forced his company to close. >> there's something the government can do. i stand here, and i've got a little corner i stand in this. i look around and i see a lot of guys, man, just out of work. there's a lot of guys out of work. it just do something to you. i don't have a lot of money. i'm getting wiped out.

>> we know it isn't nice to be doing this, but this -- you gotta do what you gotta do to survive in minnesota. >> go to student cam.org to watch all the winning videos, and continue the conversation about today's documentary at our facebook and twitter pages. >> let's meet another top winner in this year's student cam competition. this year's theme asked students to produce a video about an issue, event or topic that helped them better understand the role of the federal government. today we go to minnesota where sam ostland is a senior. hi, sam. >> hi. >> why did you pick hopelessness as -- hopelessness -- homelessness as the topic of your video. >> >> there was a few different topics i was considering, one of them being federal funding for

public schools which is directly affecting me, but with homelessness i felt that was a more interesting topic because there's a bit of mystery to it. i know i myself wasn't exactly sure all the causes of homelessness and what, if anything, was being done to help them. so i was interested in learning about homelessness, and i thought it would be an interesting topic for others to was your community affected by homelessness? >> well, i live in the suburbs, and the homelessness i see around where i live is a lot different than the homelessness i saw in the bigger city of minneapolis or st. paul. the homelessness around here, there's only a few homeless individuals, so they kind of have a reputation. like, after viewing my video, i know a lot of people have come up to me and said, hey, you know, i saw brad, the homeless gentleman i interviewed. and i feel like for him the assistance he receives in, like, a smaller area like where i live

is a lot more, you know, based on people's generosity whereas in the city of minneapolis or st. paul there are shelters and soup kitchens to help people out. >> what did you learn from the people with whom you spoke at the food shelf? >> i went to the food shelf, they told me about this program called 231 which is a -- 211 which is a federally-funded program to try to avoid homelessness. if someone feels like they may be on the verge of becoming homeless, they could call 211, and there's a bunch of resources available to them to try to avoid that outcome. >> beyond 211 what is the federal government doing to address homelessness? >> the federal government provides funding for soup kitchens and shelters across the u.s., and they also have housing programs. i researched a bit and saw hud,

the department of housing and you urban development has temporary housing programs for people who may just need a bit of extra time to get back on their feet. and they also have permanent housing programs to help low-income families or maybe people who just aren't able to work. >> what should people come away with after watching your video? >> i just hope that when people see, hear brad's story or see how the homeless people are in the documentary that they'll have a bit more respect and know that, you know, not all people are homeless because of bad choices. when i was interviewing brad, i was getting a shot of him just standing on the corner of the street with his sign, and as i was doing that, someone drove by, rolled their window down and literally threw a handful of change at brad. and you can see it in the documentary where he bends down to, like, pick up some of the change out of the snow, and, you

know, the person was yelling at him to just get a real job. and, you know, it's not that easy, especially if, you know, you're already homeless and you're struggling. so i hope that people just see that some homeless people, you know, they're still nice people, and they just need a bit of extra help. >> let's take a look at a portion of sam's documentary, "homeless." >> every day while driving to school, i pass a stranger near the community mall. each day he wakes up, trudges half a mile to his corner and stands in the same place all day. this stranger is familiar to everyone but known to no one. is there nothing being done to end this tragedy? nothing to help the homeless? ♪ >> found that nearly six million very low-income households pay more than half their monthly income for rent or live in severely substandard housing. our recently-released annual homeless assessment report found

that on any given night in america, more than 460,000 -- 640,000 men, women and children are without housing. >> you can see this entire video at studentcam.org. and continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> throughout the month of april we'll feature the top winners of this year's c-span's student cam competition. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentaries on the theme, "washington, d.c. through my lens." watch the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:350 a.m. eastern, just before washington journal. and during the program meet the students who created them. stream all the winning videos anytime online at studentcam.org. >> a few months ago i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move

forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> watch all the events from the current spending debate and the debate about next year's budget as well from capitol hill and the house and senate floor to the white house and around washington online with the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share with everything we've covered since 1987. it's what you want, when you want. >> follow c-span on twitter. it's the fastest way to get programming and schedule updates as well as links to events we have covered. you can also tweet questions directly to our washington journal guests. join the viewers who already follow our twitter feeds from c-span2's booktv to american history on c-span3 and c-span radio. get started at twitter.com/c-span. >> the u.s. senate is in recess now to allow members to attend their weekly party caucus lunches. earlier today senators approved a pair of judicial nominations.

senate's expected back at 2:15 p.m. eastern for general speeches, and, of course, senate stands poised to consider the spending and budget agreement that was reached late last friday night. earlier today members of both parties came to the floor to talk about the negotiations. first up, we'll see majority leader harry reid. then about five minutes later, the budget committee ranking member, jeff sessions. their comments run about 20 minutes. of allegiance that marks the beginning after new legislative day in the united states senate. on the 105th anniversary of the beginning of the civil war, the words "one narks indivisible" mean more today than most other days. along with chaplain black's inspiring invocation, the pledge reminds us of the true purpose of our work. we recall our responsibility to our country, our countrymen and to our conscience. i'm particularly pleased to seat

senate open this morning. as we all know, la week at this time, even as recently as just a few evenings ago, whether the government would stay open was a very real question. as i said here late on friday night, i am a pleased we reached an agreement on a budget in time to keep the government operating. i am pleased that the budget will make historic cuts saving the country money so we can lower our deficit and do a better job of living within our means. throughout the last few weeks, i reminded the senate this negotiation, like any negotiation, neither side would get everything they wanted. from the start i also expressed my firm belief that what we cut will always be more important than how much we cut. that's because our nation's budget is a representation of our values and what we value. it's one of the many ways we demonstrate as a congress and as a country what matters most to us, what is important. this concept is not unique to

democrats. as the speaker of the house and the chairman of the house budget committee have both said, our budget is a moral document. those following the budget debate have noticed something. while both parties may agree in principle that a budget is more than simply a collection of numbers, our positions couldn't be more different. we stayed tr -- we stayed true to our values. we value americans' right to afford a healthy life. the republicans tried to use the budget to repeal rights. we stayed true to our values and didn't let them. we value women's health, but republicans tried to use the budget to make it harder for women to get contraception that reduces abortions. their budget tried to make it harder for women to get cancer screenings and tried to slash funding for cancer research. we stayed true to our values and we didn't let them. we also value our seniors' ability to support themselves

but republicans tried to use the budget to slice the social security administration. that would have meant delays for seniors who count on the benefits. they also tried to use the budget to reopen the doughnut. we stayed true to our values. we didn't let them. we value our children's education. but republicans tried to use the budget to kick little boys and girls out of prekindergarten programs and slice pell grants that help so many students afford college. we stayed true to our values, and we didn't let them. madam president, we value our environment, but republicans tried to use the budget to give polluters a free pass to poison the air we breathe. we stayed true to our values, and we didn't let them. we value our economic security, but republicans tried to repeal the promise we made to taxpayers that they will never again be

asked to bail out a big bank. they tried to use the budget to reverse those rules and put in place -- which we put in place to hold wall street accountable. we stayed true to our values and we didn't let them. finally, madam president, we value our responsibility to create jobs, but republicans also tried to use the budget to reverse the momentum we've seen in recent months. policies they tried to jam through the budget would have cost us 700,000 jobs and slammed the brakes on economic growth. we stayed true to our values and we didn't let them. there are many more examples in this vast budget, examples of programs republicans wanted to destroy but democrats demanded we protect. there are many examples where they wanted to cut recklessly and we insisted on cutting responsibly. throughout this debate we stayed true to our values. the american people noticed and they're glad we did.

by clear majorities our constituents are glad we stood up for h.r., women's -- up for health reform, women's health and cleaner air and on and on. this budget battle illustrated to the american people the fundamental differences between the two parties. in some cases our priorities are poles apart. that is obvious to the american people, as well as it should be. they are the ones who always decide whether their representatives morals more closely match their own. as we work toward finalizing this year's budget, start the conversation about next year's budget and engage notified at 10:55. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president, the american people have high expectations of their leaders. they should have that, and they should demand that. and one of the basic expectations that we should have for our president that he would

be honest and forthright in discussing the critical issues facing our nation. he should engage in the nation's most important debates and provide leadership and take all appropriate steps to protect our nation when we face a clear and present danger. clearly, the dominant issue of our time, i think there is no dispute within this chamber, that issue is our fiscal path, the debt course we're on, the fact that we want to see our country be prosperous and grow, create more jobs, not losing jobs. and to do that, we've got to confront the large soaring debt that we have. it dwarfs all other issues. the american people know it. they gave a shellacking to the big spenders in the last election. it's what i hear whenever i'm at

home, what my mails and e-mails and phone calls say. people are worried about the future of our country economically, and they are exactly right. the people that are not right are those who say change is not necessary. people who are in the n denial -- people who are in denial, government agencies and departments, people who receive governmental grants and programs think that nothing has changed in their own minds, but things have changed. i wish it weren't so, but it is so. so the congressional budget act requires that congress pass a budget every year by april 15. that's this friday. the budget that congress has received from the white house a few weeks ago, i have described as the most irresponsible budget ever submitted by a president to the congress and to the nation because it did nothing to confront the problems we face. it made no recommendations about

the entitlement programs -- social security, medicare, medicaid. zero. it increased discretionary spending, increased taxes by $1.7 trillion. and according to the congressional budget office who analyzed the president's budget, they conclude that had it increases the debt, when it's all over, more than the debt would have been increased if we hadn't had a budget from the president, even with the $1.7 trillion in new taxes. that's why it was irresponsible. it did not confront the issues that we so seriously confront today. and he said when he announced it that that budget would cause us to live within our means, that it would not increase the debt and that we're not going to spend any more money than we're taking in.

fact check organizations have all found that to be false. it's plainly false. the lowest single year in which we have a deficit -- and we have a deficit every year under the president's budget -- is $740 billion. and it's increasing in the tenth year to $1.2 trillion. the highest deficit president bush was $450 billion. the lowest president obama projects in ten years is $750 billion and going up in the out years to $1.2 trillion. in contrast, house budget committee chairman paul ryan has made the most serious attempt, i think, maybe in history to deal with the systemic threats our country faces to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges. now, the bowles and simpson debt commission cochairmen appointed

by president obama -- his own commission -- described paul ryan's budget this way: a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges. they went on to say -- quote -- "going forward, anyone who issues an alternative plan to chairman ryan's should be held to the same standard when offering their solutions. we simply cannot back away from these issues." close quote. rather than defend the president's budget or offer an alternative, what we've been seeing in this chamber are just attacks on congressman ryan, attacks on anybody that says change has got to occur. they act like nothing has to change. many remain in denial. our chairman, senator conrad, who said so many good things --

our democratic chairman -- about the need to challenge the status quo and make changes to put our country on the right path, said representative ryan's proposal is partisan and ideological. he provides dramatic tax cuts for the wealthiest financed by draconian reductions in medicare and medicaid. his proposals are unreasonable and unsustainable. close quote. well, is this going to be the nature of our discussion? i thought we were supposed to be trying to reach a bipartisan understanding of the challenges facing us and do something about it. you saw what the president's own debt commission cochairman said respectfully of the ryan proposal. and this is what our leadership says. others have called it extreme. they say it's driven by these evil tea party people who don't know anything. they know something.

they know the government is spending us into virtual bankruptcy and that congress has failed in its basic responsibilities to protect the nation from economic danger. the american people are right. well, so the president now says that after really not once discussing with the american people why we have a crisis, i called on him before the state of the union message to enter into a dialogue with the american people, to look them in the eye and explain why we're in trouble, why we've got to change. who wants to go and propose any reduction in any spending? the presiding officer: senator sessions, you have five minutes left. mr. sessions: i thank the

president. and who wants to do that? we're in a position where we have to make those kind of tough choices, just like our counties, our cities, our mayors, our state governors are make every day. so now we're told the president is going to give a speech. he hasn't yet even discussed the danger we face. and we're told that the president is planning this major speech to discuss our long-term fiscal problem. well, i'd say, first of all, it has to be considered a dramatic admission that his previous claims that his budget calls on us to live within our means, to pay down the debt and not add to the debt were false. they say that the president will support some of the recommendations in the fiscal commission, his own commission, bowles and simpson.

i hope that's true, but i just want to say this: at this point in history, with the budget supposed to be passed in the senate friday, and we haven't even had a markup to have a hearing on a budget, we've not seen one other than the president's previous budget which is so utterly irresponsible, i think he owes more than a speech. we hear a lot of speeches in this country, a lot from the president. all we need is numbers. what he needs to do is submit a new budget. if he's going to change his projections for the future and go into -- propose alterations in our entitlement programs, let's see the numbers. he's got, what? 300, 500 people in the president's office of management and budget. so if this is serious, let's have a serious proposal. the house has done it. the house, republican house,

they've got a budget. they're going to move that budget. i suspect we'll have that budget passed in the house by friday. it's got real numbers, real integrity, real change. it puts us on a path to prosperity, not debt and decline. the american people know this is serious. they know we're in a dangerous time. and all we have to do is rise up and make some tough choices like mayors and governors and families are making around their kitchen table every day. this is not -- when we get through this exercise -- and we will; over a period of years probably -- we're not going to find that the government sank into the ocean because we reduced agencies 15%, 20%, 25%, even if they need to be that much. most won't have to be that much. so the president needs to lay out concrete specific details about how he intends to solve these challenges that we face.

not a general speech. and the house and senate budget committees must be able to review what he proposes, as the budget act presumes, in real numbers, and add them up. and the congressional budget office needs to be able to analyze it, the nonpartisan budget office to, see what will actually play out in terms of dollars. the executive office of o.m.b., the president can do this, in 1996 president clinton produced four budgets, and that shutdown occurred during that time, and they had a big fight during that time. but you know what happened three years later? the budget was balanced. yes, it was a messy fight and people made a lot of mistakes.

but the end result was the american people said you're spending too much. congress rose up and said we're not going to keep doing this. and they balanced a budget. we're in a deeper hole today. it's going to be a lot harder, but it can be done again if we meet the challenges. so the questions that must be answered by the president in the new budget are some of these: the fiscal commission recommends $1.3 trillion less in discretionary spending than proposed in the president's budget. how does the president plan to alter his budget to achieve those savings? the fiscal commission recommends finding $600 billion in entitlement savings. but the president's budget would increase entitlement spending by $905 billion. that's his budget he submitted already, a few weeks ago. how does he intend to achieve these savings in enstphaoeuplts the fiscal -- in enstphaoeuplts the fiscal commission

recommendations would reduce our debt by $4 trillion. the ryan plan would reduce it by $5 trillion. but the president's budget would increase the debt by $10 trillion and would not produce any savings really. how would the president alter his original budget to reduce the debt by $4 trillion. i'd like it to see something more than a speech. give me a break. i'd like to see some numbers. sphwhr so we can discuss it. -- where? so we can discuss it. once the president engages, we can have that long overdue national dialogue about solving the nation's problems. but he's got to acknowledge we have one, as every wince has told us. the debt commission chairman,

sirch does on an bowles, said this nation has never face add more predictable financial crisis. they see it coming. we've got to change. so i hope in his speech he'll discuss entitlements, discuss whether it is good to burden the energy companies with new taxes, discuss whether we should tax small businesses even moshings discuss the military budget. these are real tough issues. i think the president should talk about that. rather than trying to drain every cent of tax revenue from the american people, washington should try to drain every cent of waste from the federal budget. i hope this does not continue the pattern of retreat that is already emerging where the president supports deficit reduction in theory but resists it in pravmen practice and clait when he's forced to accept reductions. for a presidency to abdicate his

responsibility to lead the effort to meet one of the greatest challenges of our nation's history would be tantamount to leaving the battlefield in a time of war. so i hope we have a speech. i hope it's backed up with real numbers, and i hope and pray that it represents a recognition by the president of the united states that we have a serious fiscal challenge before us. business as usual cannot continue. change is necessary, and that he intends to participate in that and help lead the good change that's necessary. i thank the president and would yield the floor. and i note the absence of a and i note the absence of a >> and the senate is in recess now to allow members to attend their weekly party caucus lunches. earlier today lawmakers approved

a pair of judicial nominations. senate is expected back at 2:15 p.m. eastern for general speeches, and, of course, the senate stands poised to consider the spending and budget agreement reached late, late last friday night. live coverage when the senate returns at 2:15 eastern here on c-span2. >> a few months ago i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because both parties worked through their differences and found common ground. now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> watch all the events from the current spending debate and the debate about next year's budget as well from capitol hill and the house and senate floor to the white house and around washington online with the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share with everything we've covered since 1987. it's what you want, when you want.

>> on april 12, 1861, confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina, igniting the civil war. this month the nation commemorates the 150th anniversary of the bombardment, and next weekend american history tv on c-span3 brings you the sights and sounds from fort sumter and charleston with a special look at wartime life in the 1860s as well as interviews with civil war scholars and reenactors from the north and south. you can press the c-span alert button and have our schedules e-mailed to you. >> and a live look here at what is called the clock corridor in the capitol. this is where u.s. senate members are holding their weekly party caucus lunches. we're having a look here because senate republican leaders are expected to come to the microphone and say a few words or before the senate gavels back in.

early morning house and senate negotiators released the details of the compromise fiscal year 2011 spending bill, so 1.049 trillion, it cuts $38.5 billion from 2010 spending levels. it was released three days ago after a late-night agreement friday between house speaker john boehner, senate majority leader harry reid and president obama in order to avert a government shutdown. .. it is 2008 all over again.

it is 2008 all over again. democrat line, go ahead. caller: >> the debt ceiling does have to be increased for our country which is dead solve it at the moment. we don't want people calling in the markers just get. deficit reduction looks like a good idea although it depends upon what deficits get resumes.. >> host: what do you mean by that? >> caller: what you would reduce deficit reduction?u redut do you reduce it in things like medicare and medicaid medicare and medicaid? we have to pay that out by law. military spending? or do you reduce it in the 20%,

which is giving money into jobs to people that are not necessarily part of the military industrial complex. host: independent line, lynchburg, virginia. caller: hello. host: turn down your tv. caller: ok. i am calling from fayetteville, north carolina. i had a question i wanted to ask about -- most of the people you see talking this come on tv act as the this large debt just started when obama went into office. i think the people need to know that this debt has been rising for several presidential terms.

it is not just something that came about in the last two years. host: as far as raising the debt ceiling? caller: taking care of the debt we already have in raising the debt ceiling -- we have to raise it, because it has been raised so many times before that -- that is why there is no money now. the spending has been going on for years. host: here is this, and from twitter. van buren, ark., republican line. caller: raising the debt limit is a horrible idea. this has gotten us nothing but

trouble. cutting the spending by far is the best means of getting the debt under control. a couple of billion dollars, i do not think it will handle that. we could see really bad debt with inflation. the american people need to learn the mechanics of our money. do it online or get a book. understand how they are doing this. host: clinton, conn., a democrat line. caller: it is time to do away with corporate welfare. the oil subsidies for the richest companies in the world, the farming subsidies for mass of industrial firms, and other corporate welfare items like that. it is time they stood on their

own legs and only need taxpayer support. host: 1 percent says the debt ceiling has to be raised. president obama -- one person says the debt ceiling has to be raised. we are talking about the raising of the debt limit. caller: thanks for taking my call this morning. if you look at the funding levels in 2008 versus what it is now, a lot of these areas are not cut. a lot of the rhetoric from both sides failed to take notice of this.

thanks for taking my call. raising the debt limit is a bad idea. host: republican line. caller: i am on the independent line. i think the redundancy and inefficiency in government is so mpid.d -- rapi we would be ok. i am on social security. a couple of years ago, they decided to send everyone who was a senior, $250. we did not ask for it, but we got a two letters. one letter said we would get the money. a follow-up letter said they were going to send us another letter with our check.

they did exactly that. also in a lot of the agricultural departments, they allow their people to put in lots of overtime. that is during the winter if they want. in the summer, they can take off. it has weeks of not going to work. there is not a business in the world that can work like that. host: that was diane in north dakota. a spokesperson address the issue of the debt ceiling. here is what he had to say. >> the president said he regrets that vote and says it was a mistake. he realizes that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy, that it is not a vote that even when you are protesting the

administration policy, you can play around with. you need to take very seriously the need to raise the debt limit so that the full faith and credit of the united states government is maintained around the globe. host: kansas city, missouri, robert, a democrat line. caller: thanks for taking my call. everything has been blamed on medicare and social security, but no one has said anything about the cost of the war that has been going on around here. we have to continue to raise the ceiling. another thing we have is with the ship in libya. the cost of shooting those

rockets in the airplanes, they keep saying that is because of the country and no one wants to stop that cost. but they keep talking about so security. i think it will continue to raise the ceiling to get the country out of debt. host: according to several sources, -- this is the baltimore sun this morning. the "washington post" talks about the behind the scenes and

goings on. there was a poll. one of the questions asked during the survey is if you had to use one single word, what word would that be? the word with the most response was to attack ridiculous." -- was the word "ridiculous."

caller: there are some costs that nobody is looking at. if someone is in a real catastrophe like japan with the earthquake and a tsunami, of course, america wants to help. spending money to help with the army in the palestinian area and is sending money for u.n. relief and a training little children to hate and terrorize, i think we need to look at crimes like this that are not serving in a national purpose. host: mitt romney has announced that he is forming an exploratory presidential committee. jonathan weisman made his

twitter.s known by a twittevia the story in "the wall street journal" says the announcement that he can formally begin running money for the presidential campaign. jackson, mississippi, you are next. caller: it seems like everybody is asking the wrong question. what principle are we using when we say america is the richest country in the world and we are

broke. how much is america worth? how can we be broke? we are the richest country in the world. how can we be broke? what kind of accounting practices are we using? it seems like nobody tells the truth anymore. we are a country that is on the brink. everything is great. you ask a person a question, and they do not answer the question you asked. they tell you something totally different. nobody tells the truth. how much is america worth? host: oceanside, california, republican line. caller: i have two things to say. the first comment is i was not -- i would not raise the debt ceiling, because it would force the government to work with the money they have. i would not raise the debt limit.

the second creative idea is i never hear anybody say there is a contingency plan where we allow money to flow into the system. for example, sells a security money should never -- money should never have been taken out of social security. >> and we will need this now to go back to the senate which has just gaveled and for generalityi speeches. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. today is my distinct privilege to address this historic body for the first time. it is a moment in time when our nation is in peril. not only do we continue to face the very real threat of

international terrorism, but we also face a threat of our own making, one that challenges the very foundation of this republic. our nation was founded on the basis of god-given rights and individual liberty. the genius of our founding fathers' vision was rooted in their recognition that more often than not government was something to fear. government necessarily limited individual freedom and, therefore, government itself must be limited. its potential for growth highly constrained. during america's first entry, this vision was largely upheld. the last century, however, has been an entirely different story. in 1902 the federal government spent 2% of the nation's gross

domestic product. the size, scope, and cost of the federal government was constrained by the constitution's enumerated powers. the individual was preeminent and government's role was modest and pedestrian. this body played a key role in limiting federal government expansion. debate in the senate was unlimited. the cloture vote did not exist. as george washington had said, the senate really was the saucer that cooled the tea. all that changed in the 20th century's second decade. the senate adopted the cloture vote and america adopted the

16th amendment. the federal government now had the power to tax income and the senate had made it easier for government to grow. and guess what? the government grew. it did grow in reaction to real problems. trust had been formed that concentrated power and created monopolies that threatened free markets. capital did exert too much power over labor. balance was needed. and our our nation's prosperity grew, the elimination of poverty and retirement insecurity became a public responsibility. private charity was simply deemed not up to the task. so government acted and government grew. from 2% in 1902 to today where the federal government spends 25% of our nation's economy and

combined all levels of government in the u.s. now consume 39%. by comparison the size of government in norway is 40%. in greece it's 47%. and in france 53%. in the end i don't believe americans want to be like france or greece. we haven't reached that tipping point yet, but we are extremely close. there is a reason america holds 5% of the world's population and, yet, accounts for 24% of the world's g.d.p. it is because of freedom, a free market system, and the american people. america became a land of unlimited opportunity because we were a nation of self-reliant people. hard work was valued.

personal responsibility expected and success was celebrated, not demonized. i grew up in that america. i'm very sad to say what i have witnessed during my lifetime is a slow but steady drift. and i would argue over the last two years a lurch toward a culture of entitlement and dependency. this is not an america i recognize. it is not an america that will work. even worse we have granted entitlements and encouraged dependency with little thought as to how we would pay for it. we have racked up enormous debt and now the bill a coming due. time is running out. last week the government almost shut down because we were arguing over a a few -- over a a

few billion dollars. but our debt and deficits are measured in the trillions. our problem is a thousand times larger than the current debate. most of us recognize this is simply unsustainable. most of us know what programs need to be reformed. most of us want to fix the problem. so let's start addressing these issues now before it really is too late. these are enormous problems and it is easy to become pessimistic, but there's reason to be hopeful. i've done a fair amount of traveling throughout wisconsin over the last year speaking to all kinds of people, republicans, democrats, union members, tea party folks. i talked about america, about

how incredibly precious and exceptional it really is and how i fear we may be losing it. but i will never forget is how many people came up to me after my speeches with tears in their eyes or tears running down their cheeks not because i'm a great public speaker because people love this country. their political affiliation makes absolutely no difference. americans want this nation preserved and they're counting on us to do just that. the good news is they'll support us if we make the hard choices together. so together let's roll up our sleeves and do what needs to be done. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president,

i just want to congratulate our new senator from wisconsin, a very important addition to our conference and to the senate, a man who's actually run a business. actually employed people and created welt an opportunity -- wealth and opportunity in his state and our country. having someone in the senate who knows how to do that at this critical moment is absolutely essential and i congratulate the new junior senator from wisconsin. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snoir senator from wyoming -- the senior senate from wyoming. mr. enzi: it's nice to have the additional help with numbers. it will make a tremendous difference. he has had the business experience and the accounting experience and really understands that a lot of things to us in the senate look pretty senate, -- simple but to the person working on the ground looks very different. he's good at expressing himself and particularly good with numbers so i congratulate him on

his maiden speech. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. a senator: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, we are at an extraordinary crossroads in american history both from a moral sper speck

alternative as well as -- moral perspective as well as an economic perspective. the reality is today, as i think most americans understand, is that the middle class of our country is collapsing. over the last ten years median family income has gone down by $2,500. millions of americans have lost their jobs, secured new jobs at substantially lower pay; younger workers finding it very, very hard to get a job at a livable wage. furthermore, mr. president, what we don't talk about terribly often here on the floor of the senate or certainly in the corporate media is the rather unfortunate reality that in the united states, we have the most unequal distribution of income and of wealth of any major country on earth. today the top 1% of earners

makes 23% of all income. top 1% earns 23% of every dollar, and that is more than the bottom 50%. top 1% makes more money than the bottom 50%. the percentage of income going to the top 1%, mr. president, has nearly tripled -- nearly tripled -- since the 1970's. between 1980 and 2005, 80% -- 80% -- of all new income in america went to the top 1%. today when we talk about distribution of wealth -- not income -- the numbers are, frankly, beyond belief. today in america, if you can believe it, the wealthiest 400 americans -- 400 americans -- a very small number, out of a

nation of over 300 million people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans. 400, 150. and that gap between the very, very rich and everyone else is growing wider. mr. president, i don't have to describe economically what's going on in this country because almost everybody understands it. real unemployment today is not 8.9%. it's closer to 16%. today in america, 50 million people have no health insurance. today in america seniors and disabled vets understand that they have not received a social security cola in three years. so what we start with, mr. president, when we look at america today sal middle class which is disappearing, poverty

which is increasing. and the people on top doing phenomenally well. now given that reality, one might think that the congress would be actively involved in trying to protect the middle class and working families and lower-income people. but if one believed that, one would be sorely mistaken. mr. president, just last december -- four months ago -- congress passed legislation to provide huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires by extending the bush tax cuts to the top 2% and by even more by lowering the estate tax for the top .3%. so at a time when the people on top are already doing phenomenally well, what congress

did against my vote in december was make the wealthiest people even wealthier. so four months ago, after giving huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, growing the deficit, our republican friends and some democrats come back and they say, well, you know, now we have a real deficit problem. we made the problem worse in december, so now we really have got to deal with the deficit, and we're going to do it by making devastating cuts to programs that low- and moderate-income americans desperately depend upon. what we are looking at, mr. president, is the robin hood principle in reverse. we are taking from working families who are struggling to survive, taking hundreds of billions of dollars and giving it to millionaires and billionaires. in my view, this is grossly

immoral and it is also very, very bad economics. let me just touch on some of the cuts that are coming down the pike in this, the 2011 budget. at a time of soaring fuel prices -- in the state of vermont and i'm sure in minnesota heat with oil; the cost is going up. the low-income home energy assistance program, liheap, would be cut by $390 million. in vermont, many of the people who use the liheap program are low-income senior citizens. so we give tax breaks to billionaires and we go after low-income senior citizens and say, sorry, you may have to go cold. at a time when the cost of college education is getting unaffordable for many, many low- and moderate-income families in this country, hundreds and

thousands of young people have given up their college dream because of the high cost of college, pell grants would be reduced by an estimated $35 billion over ten years including a nearly $500 million cut this year. and pell grants are the major source of federal funding to help low- and moderate-income college students go to school. mr. president, at a time when 50 million americans have no health insurance, community health centers would be cut by $600 million. it is an issue i worked very, very hard on. community health centers provide access to primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs and mental health counseling for some 20 million americans right now. our hope was to expand that to 40 million americans. and when you do that, you save money because people do not end up in the emergency room.

they do not end up in the hospital sicker than they should have been. $600 million for community health centers were cut. women, infant and children, w.i.c. program, nutrition program for low-income pregnant women will be cut by $500 million. at a time when we have such high unemployment rates and when we want to put americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, including our rail system, which is now far behind europe, japan, and even china, federal funding for high-speed rail will be eliminated in the budget we're going to be voting on very soon, representing a cut of $2.9 billion. public transportation will be cut by nearly $1 billion, a 20% reduction. mr. president, i know in

vermont, and i expect all over this country, local communities are struggling with their budgets. police departments are not getting the budgets and the manpower that they need. and yet, in this budget that we'll be voting on, local law enforcement funding would be cut by $296 million. at a time when homelessness is increasing, when we need more low-income housing, public housing would be cut by $605 million. mr. president, that is the 2000 budget agreement that was just reached a few days ago. and what is absolutely incredible about that budget is that deficit reduction falls totally on the backs of low- and moderate-income families, on people who will not be able to get health care at community health centers, young people who

will not be able to go to college, senior citizens who will not be able to heat their homes in the wintertime. that's where this budget is balanced, on the backs of the weak, the vulnerable, the children, the elderly and the poor. and yet, at the same time as the wealthiest people are becoming wealthier this, budget does not ask for one penny, one penny from millionaires and billionaires. at a time when major corporation after major corporation enjoys huge tax loopholes so not only do they avoid paying any federal income taxes, in many cases such as general electric, they actually get a rebate from the i.r.s., this budget does not ask corporate america to pay one penny more in corporate income taxes. that's where we are with the

2011 budget, and now we're looking in a short period of time at the 2012 budget. and, mr. president, if you think this 2011 budget is a moral and economic disgrace, wait until you hear what this 2012 budget, the so-called paul ryan tea party budget, which as i understand it will be voted on in the house, likely passing later this week. that budget will slash trillions of dollars from medicare, converting medicare into a voucher program, meaning that seniors will have to pay substantially more for their health care than they currently do. and, mr. president, the interesting question that has not yet been answered about this is if you are or will be, when

this ryan budget would be into effect, a senior citizen living on $14,000 or $15,000 a year, on which millions of seniors currently live, how are you going to be able to come up with thousands and thousands of dollars to pay for your cancer treatment or the other problems that senior citizens have? how are you going to do it? there is no money available for you to do it. so what ryan's budget does is demand that low-income seniors pay for money -- with money they don't have. what happens? i'm not sure i've heard that answer. if you are a low-income senior citizen and you're asked to come up with thousands of dollars out of your pocket and you don't have that money, what do you do? th -- the ryan budget would -- medicaid and other programs that tens of millions of americans depend upon. but here is the kicker, we

savage medicare, medicaid, education, and many other programs that moderate and middle-class families depend upon in order to give even more tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and to the largest corporations. after savages health care in america for middle-income and low-income families, the ryan budget would reduce the tax rates for the wealthiest tax rate for people in this country from 35% -- 25% to 35%. corporate the same levels 35% to 25%. i suspect there are people listening to me now who just don't believe it. they're saying, come on. you're not serious. at a time when the middle class is collapsing, you're not telling me people in the house are about to vote on a budget which will give huge tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and large corporations and cut

back and throw millions more off of health care. you're not really serious. check it out. i am serious. this is exactly what the ryan tea party budget, which will likely pass the house, has in mind. so, mr. president, as i began saying we are at a pivotal moment in a -- in the history -- modern history of this country. and that is whether or not we move in a sense into a form of society where a few people on top have incredible amounts of wealth and inreadible amounts of political power -- incredible amount of political power while the middle class disappears and poverty increases. that's where we are right now. and i would hope very much that the american people engage in this debate and to tell members of the senate to tell members of

the house that it is morally wrong and very poor economics to cut back on programs desperately needed by working families while giving huge tax breaks to people who absolutely don't need them. mr. president, with that, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. president, i rise to discuss the issue of our budget. later this week, the house will vote on its fiscal year 2012 budget resolution. congressman paul ryan, the author of that blueprint, calls it a path to prosperity. a senator: would you yield for a question? mr. schumer: i would be happy to yield? mr. inhofe: would the senator agree that at the conclusion of the senator's remarks that i be recognized as if in morning business for up to 30 minutes? mr. schumer: mr. president, i would move that immediately after i finish speaking, that senator -- we had a speaker who was going to go after you did. could you limit it to 15

minutes? mr. inhofe: no, sir, i could not. i have got to have 30 minutes. the floor has been pretty empty today. mr. schumer: okay. i ask unanimous consent that immediately after i finish, senator inhofe be recognized for up to 30 minutes, and then senator franken be recognized immediately after senator inhofe. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, just resuming my remarks, paul ryan, the author of that blueprint, called it the path to prosperity. mr. president, it may be a path to austerity, but it is hardly a path to prosperity. nonetheless, with the negotiations finished just days ago on last year's budget, congressman ryan has succeeded in jump-starting the debate about next year's. the president himself will join this conversation about how to do long-term deficit reduction in a major address tomorrow at

g.w.u., george washington university. this is a debate we must have, and the president's entrance to it comes not a moment too soon. it will make for a powerful contrast with the republicans' plan. the contrast we will hear from our president tomorrow will likely not be in the commitment to deficit reduction. paul ryan's goal in his budget is to trim the deficit by by $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. he does not succeed in meeting this target, according to c.b.o. in fact, budget experts say his proposal only achieves achieves $155 billion in net deficit reduction, but the number itself is not the issue. without a doubt, we must be ambitious in setting a target for deficit reduction. we cannot be gun-shy about achieving fiscal discipline. so no, the contrast will not be in how much we seek to reduce

the deficit. it will be in how we -- we go about doing so. the republicans would like the looming debate to be one about numbers, but instead, it will be about priorities. and, mr. president, the ryan budget has all the wrong priorities. the house republican budget puts the entire burden of reducing the deficit on citizens, students and middle-class families. at the same time, it protects corporate subsidies for oil companies, lets waste at the pentagon go untouched, and would give even more tax breaks to the millionaires amongst us. in short, the ryan budget puts the middle class last instead of first. as a result, it will never pass the senate. in the day days -- e

takes since he first rolled out his budget proposal, congressman ryan has hailed for taking on the tough challenges, and we certainly salute him for putting out a plan. but a closer look at his proposal shows that it is not bold at all in leaving pentagon spending and revenues completely untouched, ryan budget used exactly to his party's orthodoxy. some of the columns i read that says it takes courage? well, maybe it takes courage for someone from a different political philosophy so say what he said but not for a conservative republican to say what he said. ryan's budget doesn't gore a single republican ox. it is a rigid, ideological document. consider what congressman ryan wants to do on medicare. in the name of ideology, paul ryan's budget proposes getting rid of medicare as it exists

today and replacing it with a private system that would cut benefits. mr. president, we've seen this movie before. five years ago, president bush tried to sell the country on a plan to privatize social security. the public rejected it. well, if you didn't like what president bush tried to do so social security, just wait until you see what paul ryan and the house republicans want to do to medicare. madam president, their budget plan proposes putting the medicare system into the hands of private insurance companies. that is a recipe for disaster. it would mean an end to medicare as we know it. beginning in 2022, americans turning 65 would no longer be enrolled in medicare but instead

would receive a voucher to go shopping for their own health insurance on the open market. insurance companies, however, would not be required to honor that coucher, which would average about $8,000. many private insurance plans for seniors far exceed that price already today. but under the ryan plan, seniors who cannot find an affordable plan at the value of their voucher would simply have to make up the difference themselves out of their own pockets. this problem would only worsen over time as health care costs rise ryan caps medicare spending at the level of inflation, even though historically health care costs rise higher than that. as ryan's voucher covers a smaller and smaller fraction of actual health care costs, seniors would have to cover the gap out of pocket.

which is why alice rivlin, a democrat, and president clinton's former o.m.b. director who worked with congressman ryan on his approach for a time, has distanced herself from this final product. she told "the washington post" that she opposes the ryan plan -- quote -- "in the ryan version, he has lowered the rate of growth and i don't think that's defensible. it pushed too much of the cost on to the beneficiaries." let me repeat that last part of alice rivlin, congressman ryan's partner for a time in this proposal. toy pushe"it pushed," she writet pushed too much of cost on to the beneficiaries." other medicare experts agree with rivlin. steven zuckerman, a health care economist at the nonpartisan you urban institute said -- quote --

"the most serious flaw of that approach is that limiting federal spending on medicare without concern about the potential of this change to shift costs to medicare beneficiaries." a better way, madam president, to rein in medicare spending would be to trim the waste and inefficiency out of the delivery system. anyone who's gone through the health care system knows all the waste and inefficiencies. the legendary stories of a doctor waiving as you go into the emergency room and then you -- and you never see them again and then there's a $4,000 charge. these kinds of things. but it turns out that ryan's plan does nothing to reduce overall health care costs. it increases. they we have to preserve the benefits to people but make the cost of delivering them less expensive. that's what every other country in the world does. that's what we have to do.

but the ryan plan doesn't do that. the ryan plan not only doesn't try to eliminate the waste and efficiency out of the delivery system but it does nothing to reduce overall health care costs. it actually increases them. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, in 2030, traditional medicare insurance would cost just 60% of a private policy purchased with ryan's voucher. in other words, the ryan health care plan would cost two-thirds more than traditional medicare. not only would the ryan plan increase insurance costs, it would force seniors to shoulder a higher share of these costs. c.b.o. said -- quote -- this is c.b.o., not check schumer, the nonpartisan

c.b.o. -- c.b.o. writes, "under the proposal, most people entitled to premium payments would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current health care system." how much more? madam president, it's staggering when you look at the numbers. here they are. the seniors' share of health care costs. we all know that even with medicare, seniors have to pay some of it themselves. but now they pay 25%. under the ryan budget, 68%. so there's this voucher and it goes to the insurance companies, health care costs more and seniors pay more. why the heck would we do that? this is a crippling burden that would drive the average medicare recipient into poverty. it is not only too much to ask for our seniors, it destroys the foundation of our health care system. madam president, just to check on the time.

i believe i said after i finished, i asked unanimous consent that congressman inhofe would follow me? the presiding officer: the senator has used 10 minutes. did the senator wish for more than ten minutes? mr. schumer: i did. and that was the intention of my unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i'll be finished in a little while and i thank my colleague from oklahoma. so the bottom line is the house republican budget would cause the cost of health insurance to rise and then would make seniors pay a greater share of that higher cost. it is a cut in benefits plan -- it is a cut-in-benefits plan, plain and simple. if we are serious about reining in medicare spending, there's a far better starting place than the ryan budget. it's the health care law passed by congress last year. republicans are patting themselves on the back lately for leading on entitlement reform, but when it comes to

reining in the runaway costs of medicare, the truth is the president did it first and he did it better. in the health care law, mr. president, we certainly didn't complete the job but we made a good start on reducing waste, inefficiency and duplication in the system. we started down the path of making delivery system reforms. we set up a system for studying the effectiveness of different methods and treatments so that care could be delivered more efficiently. we made a down payment on shifting the larger health care system away from a fee-for-service model towards a system that pays providers for episodes of care. the ryan proposal adopts none of these costsaving approaches. in fact, his budget calls for the repeal of the health care law altogether. left unsaid is that this would have the side effect of reopening the doughnut hole -- another hit to medicare beneficiaries. now, if the ryan budget's only goal was to end medicare, that would be ample cause enough to

work tooth and nail to defeat it. but the ryan budget doesn't even put most of its savings from ending medicare towards deficit reduction. amazingly, it cuts medicare, ends medicare as we know it and takes whatever savings it produces and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans. that's right, madam president, ryan's budget not only seeks to permanently extend president bush's tax cuts for millionair millionaires, he wants to cut their taxes even lower than the bush levels. in fact, under the ryan proposal, millionaires would pay a rate so low that it was last seen in the days of herbert hoover. what about shared sacrifice? as unbelievable as it sounds, congressman ryan wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. ryan's budget proposal would bring down the top rate from 35% to 25% for those who are very

wealthy. this would make the lowest level -- this would make for the lowest level of taxing the wealthiest among us since 1931. when the great depression was rage and herbert hoover was president. this is the trade congressman ryan proposes we make -- cut medicare benefits for seniors so we can afford to give millionaires an extra tax break. this is exactly the opposite of what the public wants. they don't think the millionaires and billionaires should even be getting george bush's tax cut, let alone an extra one on top of that. now, i have nothing against millionaires and billionaires. god bless them. many of them made their money the good old-fashioned american way, but they don't need a tax break when we're cutting medicare and cutting everything else. in last month's -- and most americans agree with me. in last month's nbc/"wall street journal" poll that asked americans what proposals they

most stop the reduce the deficit, 81% of americans, including a majority of republicans, as i recall, said that they would support a tax on millionaires, the highest polling answer. one of the lowest polling answers was, you guessed it, cutting medicare benefits. so the ryan budget has its priorities completely upside-down. now, you may ask, if congressman ryan puts all his savings from medicare intomillionaire tax break, how does he propose to achieve any deficit reduction? the answer is by targeting the programs most important to the middle class. it turns out that the republican plan to end medicare is also a plan to end other important programs. for example, the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut tens of thousands of teachers. and the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut head start for kids.

and the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut medical research on diseases like cancer. and the republican plan to end medicare is additionally also a plan to cut clean energy projects that create jobs and help us become energy independent. in all, the ryan plan assumes a steady squeezing of government until by 2050, the total cost of everything, save for social security and medicare, is shrunk from 12% of the g.d.p. to just 3%. but he doesn't spell out a single detail of how to achieve those cuts. he has a number but no specifi specifics. that is the definition of a meat-ax approach as opposed to a approach that uses a smart, sharp scalpel. even though the ryan plan doesn't spell out where the cuts would come from to meet his

goal, it isn't a total mystery. we can fill in the blanks. the just completed debate on fiscal year 2011 budget offers plenty of hints what the republican approach to cutting spending is. in the debate we just had, republicans wanted to cut the very programs that create good-paying jobs and help the middle class. they targeted everything from cancer research to financial aid to college. we fended off many of their worst cuts by successfully pushing republicans to include $17 billion in cuts from the mandatory side. we also got them to agree to reduce pentagon spending by nearly $3 billion compared to their original budget. this was want the republicans' preferred way to reduce the deficit. because of ideology, they disproportionately targeted the domestic discretionary part of the budget for cutting. but our deficit problems weren't caused by head start and cancer research and we won't fix them by going after head start and cancer research.

in the budget debates to come, madam president, we need to broaden the playing field beyond domestic discretionary spending. we should include, for instance, waste in the defense department. the pentagon makes up half of the discretionary side of the budget but republicans continue to treat it as off-limits. ryan himself leaves it virtually untouched save for its symbolic trim to. say there isn't waste at the pentagon, like there is waste everywhere else in the budget, is absurd. the bottom line -- any budget that leaves defense and revenues off the table is ultimately not serious. we need an all-of-the-above approach that puts all parts of the budget on the table a dollar cut from mandatory spending or the pentagon is just as good as a dollar cut from non-defense discretionary spending. deficit reduction is an important goal, but the sacrifice must be shared. the ryan budget fails that test.

in conclusion, the democratic senate will not stand for any proposals that seek to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and of seniors. i look forward to hearing the president's remarks tomorrow and, as for congressman ryan, i would encourage him to go back to the drawingboard and come up with a fairer, more balanced plan. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, let me thank my good friend from new york for allowing me to have this time and kind of change, rearrange. while i do appreciate his generosity, i have to say i don't agree with what he said. and that comes as no surprise to my friend from new york. i would only make one comment.

one statement that i heard him say toward the end of the -- of his comments was, "every other country in the world would do it this way." that's the whole crux of it right there. i often wonder, if you look at the other countries, they are hay all trying to get to our system. they all envy america for its system of freedom, of health delivery, and you wonder sometimes if -- if government owned -- if government-run health care is better. and that's what this is. that's what the obama administration is trying to do. if it's better, then why is it it doesn't work anywhere? it doesn't work in canada, the u.k., in a of the other places s and yet they always say, it'll work here. a lot of my liberal freeness friends say, if i were running it it would work. a little class warfare is healthy now and then and we had

a little bit of that in the last 20 minutes. i am going to be very offensive right knew lot of people, certainly to the rebel group taking over in. this little girl here, let me introduce you, if i could, madam president, her name is zigina march re-- zigita is an ethiopian name that means "god's grace. ings" this little girl happened toab in ethiopia. she is an orphan. my daughter molly. i should hold this up. these are my 20 kids and grandkids, madam president. so -- and so this is one of them. my daughter molly had nothing but boyce and so she adopted -- but boys and so she adopted

zigita marie. that little girl, she was two days old when we first saw her. she's now 10 years old. reads at college electrical. she came up the other day, he said, popeye -- i is for inhofe. that's me. mama and papa i. why is it you do things nobody else will do? i said, that's why i do them. so i will say to you that zigita marie got her answer. i happen to be very familiar with africa. i have been for quite sometime. on the senate armed services committee, they consider me the point man for africa. we started working with africa back at 9/11. at 9/11, we were -- made a decision that while the squeeze in terrorism in the middle east is going down through the horn of africa, we they'd to help the africans build african brigades, supply them with train-and-equip, with the

different programs, help send their officers to the use it train. it was a good program and i sometimes kind of joke around by saying, since i was the only member of the senate armed services committee that knew where africa was, i took it on. so, anyway, i do have a background in africa. for that reason, i'm going to speak for the fourth time in a week -- actually the fifth time on the crisis cote d'ivoire is a west african country. you don't read much about t it is sub-sahara africa. they do care about libya. that's up north but not subi sub-sahara africa. anyway, the news is reporting that president gbagbo, the seeded president, and his wife were captured yesterday by the french military forces acting with the military forces offal asane quattara.

you can put up the other one right now. according to the b.b.c. and reuters, the french helicopters repeatedly attacked the presidential palace and french presidential forces stormed the building with up to 30 french tanks and took them both from the presidential plals to the gulf hotel killing untold hundreds or thousands of people. we can't tell this. right here, madam president, is a picture that is taken -- this is a helicopter right here, a number of u.n. helicopter. it was encouraged to be used by the french. the french said, we authorize you. we're going to send our troops in there with you. we're going to do whatever they're doing. this is be a did i january. where they're hitting their targets there, there was an area where they had a lot of their ordinates and i have been there. and i have seen it. they are all scattered. you have little holts with galvanized steel roofs over them with countless, hundreds and hundreds of people.

they're all dead. they have to be. they can't live -- and there it is. that's the picture. put the other one up to give you an idea of what is happening. there it is. this is -- it was blown up. they are pilfering the entire town. i don't know why -- here i am a member of the united states senate and i can't get even our state department to look into see how many people they murdered that night. that was monday night, a week ago tonight is when that happened. we don't know. but they were murdered. i'm thankful that both the president, president gbagbo and the first lady, simone gbagbo were still alive. but they have been brutally mute lated. i condemn the use of so-called peacekeeping forces made up of the united nations and french forces in the attacks on abidjan and the presidential palace and these forces that have caused countless deaths in the city of abidjan. 4 million people. i hope every president of sub-sahara africa is watching

right now because what happened there can happen to any country in sub-sahara africa. africa has 52 countries. i think there are 40 of those -- 41 of those are sub-sahara africa. the multiple firings of the united nations, the french missiles into downtown abidjan are like firing missiles into downtown new york city. you -- you don't really know how many people are dead. you won't know for a long time. who knows how many hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people were killed as a result of the u.n. and the french bombings just a week ago tonight. mr. president, this is not peacekeeping. this is war-making. this is not the role of the u.n. i quest question why the french are -- i question why the french are participating in this batt battle. you know, why don't we listen to africa. africa for so many sears they were used, they were abused,

they were -- by the colonialism. and certainly no one has been worse or more offensive in that than the french have. they don't listen to africa. i had -- i called up a good friend, president museveni. he has the courage to put something down in writing women going to read to you, madam president. this is from president museveni. this is in an east africa country, not west africa, like cote d'ivoire. he said "i have not been happy with the way the united nations and international community, especially the frej, have responded to the events of the postelection ivory coast. i desire that it would be ideal for a thorough investigation into the alleged election rigging and it be done by a credible and independent body under the after cay can union he were -- aafrican union leadership instead of violently forcing gbagbo out of power without a hearing.

i am not pleased with the way the international community can sanction a situation, a blood bath in the come to stip domest" i am halfway through reading what he said. why aren't we listening to africans? he is not the only one w i think every african president would agree with what i am saying right now. he went on to say, "i would prefer a peaceful intervention by the african committee that would investigate into the matter, give the parties a faring hearing and come out with way to promote peace in the region. as was done in the case of kenya and discipl disciple bab i woult this point i believe he would be happy to have a team of capable african leaders chosen under the auspices of the african union to work on a peaceful end to the

conflict in the ivory coast. i believe the ivory coast, the african union musting given the opportunity to handle the matter in-house. i am of course not pleased with the way the u.n. and the international community has directly thrown their weight and support of alassane quattara and now recognizing him as preside president." president museveni of uganda. i have talked personally to many other presidents and i could be quoting all of them right now. that's the statement to which they all agree. madam president, i have been informed that this reflects the current sentiments of the african union, too. actually including the current a.u. chairman, obiyang who condemned the foreign military in cote d'ivoire saying "africa does not need external influence. africa must manage its own

fairs." that's what the africans said. that's president abiyang, the president of the african union. and the kenyan prime minister odinga, who happens to be here. i'll be meeting with him. he was quoted as saying that president gbagbo has been captured and i say that he should not be hurt. i have actually already sent word to mr. quattara saying that gbagbo should not be hurt. if he wants to go out into exile, he should be allowed to go into exile but he needs to be treated humanely. that's all i'm asking our state department and united nations to do. they don't do it. i have warned the u.n. and the french on the floor four times in the past week that they would have blood on their hands if they continued supporting the rebel forces of quattara and continued the bombing of the capital of cote d'ivoire and

abidjan. we will, that's what's been happening over the last -- well, that's what's been happening over the last week, ten days. i said on april 4, and i am quoting myself now on the floor, i said, "i think we can avert a real tragedy. something maybe comparable to what happened in 1994 in rwanda with the general sievmentd we also remembered we weren't warned but the united nations was. the secretary-general we now know was warned that the genocide was going to take place in 1994 in rwanda. 800,000 people hacked to death with machetes. the world stood idly by." that's sub-sahara africa. nobody cared. i called for a cease-fire in abidjan. no one responded. this was eight days ago. i wonder sometimes why is it nobody case about sub-sahara africa. i remember way back in 1998 when

under president clinton they were going to send troops in to kosovo and the excuse they were using at that time was ethnic cleansing. and i said on the senate floor, i said, why is it we're all concerned about ethnic cleansing in kosovo for every one person in kosovoes who's been ethnically cleansed on a given day, 100 in any one country in sub-sahara africa, but nobody case's cares. nobody cares about sub-sahara africa. why is there no outcry for these millions of people being brutally murdered in other places in the world and sub-sahara africa? i have to say this and i know i am repeating what i said in 1998 on the floor. i have to say this and i know it is very unpopular to say it. but i am going to quote a guy named roger wilkins, a professor of history and american culture at george mason university. he said, "i think it is pretty clear u.s. foreign policy is geared to the european-american sensibility which takes the lives of white people much more

seriously than the lives of people who are not white." what's he saying there? i think i know what's saying. but no one mobilized on behalf of the 500 people who were shot, hack, burned to death in the village in the eastern congo, central africa around the same time. no rage was expressed on half of the other millions of innocents who were slain. i read this because i knew this was going to happen. it was only five days ago that i warned that this was going to happen. so anyway, on april 5, i said that quattara tried to deny his involvement in the slaughter of up to 1,000 innocent people. this is april 5, a little over a week ago. there it is, folks. that town is called duekoue. it's in cote d'ivoire. it's a small community. the western town of duekoue, its forces took -- i'm talking about

quattara -- took the town last week after the gbagbo forces had gone. they were already gone. it had to be the quattara forces. we know now, mr. president, these people were shot, macheted and burned to death by the quattara forces. you may remember me quoting on the floor here just a few days ago, a bbc report back last week, quoted the bbc reporter andrew harding who said of the duekoue massacre, this is it now folks, a little over a week ago, he said "i spot four pigs eating something dark in a charred courtyard, standing by a newly dug masquerade. a u.n. soldier from morocco is choking with rage and grief. i asked him if any of the dead that the hogs were eating were children. he nods and begins to sob quietly into his face mask." and i pointed out that "the guardian "british newspaper quoted the u.n. mission said

that hundreds known as dozos fought alongside quattara's forces in the western town of duekoue and that julan geffa, deputy head of the united nations mission in the ivory coast, blamed at least 220 of the deaths on pro-quattara forces. i repeat, this massacre was not caused by gbagbo forces, but by the quattara forces who had taken the town. gbagbo forces had left a week earlier. there they are, look at them, mutilated bodies, chewed up, burned. that's in quattara, a small community in the western part of covered covered. i repeat -- in the western part of cote d'ivoire. again i called for a cease-fire and no one responded, just a week ago. on april 7 and april 8, i pointed out the united nations and the french were bombing

abidjan where young supporters circled the presidential palace making a human shield. this is what they did. all these kids, all they had were baseball bats and two-by-four's in a circle, surrounding the palace to protect their president, president gbagbo and his family of about 17 that were there and his wife simone. now, you saw a minute ago in this one right here that you think there's anything left of those kids surrounding the palace? no, they were all mowed down. so we called for -- that was on the 7th and 8th. who knows how many of them were killed. i can't imagine any of them lived. mr. president, i've also pointed out on april 8 that there were roving death squads. there they are right there, folks. that's quattara people. the roving death squads who -- quote -- "are disappearing. they're disappearing supporters of president gbagbo." that means they're killing them.

i called again for an immediate cease-fire. no one responded, not our state department, not the united nations. certainly not the french. mr. president, i also pointed out that i believe massive vote fraud occurred on november 28, in the election of 2010. cote d'ivoire presidential election between president laurent gbagbo and the rebel leader alassane quattara from up north. that's the northern part of cote d'ivoire. i submitted evidence in two letters to the state department that showed massive vote fraud allowed quattara to steal the election. in one instance showed that in the first round -- here, we would call this a primary and then a primary runoff. in the first round in one of the five districts in the north, they miscounted. they tabulated and just added 95,000 additional votes. i documented all of this. if we had 95,000 additional votes in each one of the five northern districts, then clearly gbagbo, president gbagbo won reelection. and in another case, the -- if

you look at what they had in the primaries, what we call primaries, in the first round president gbagbo got thousands of votes, thousands of votes in the northern five districts. and when they did the runoff, he did zero, zero votes. that's a statistical impossibility. what did our state department do? nothing. i didn't receive -- finally received a response to my two letters saying that they think this is all fraudulent. they're not going to change their mind. this is sub-sahara africa. do they really care? i can only conclude, mr. president, that our state department is engaging in a whitewash of any credible investigation into my allegation. so, mr. -- madam president, i call again on the u.n., french and what you what you forces to halt -- and quattara forces to halt the violence including that being done against president gbagbo and the first lady.

they will be held personally responsible if any more harm comes to them. i call for an independent investigation into all the atrocities committed by all military forces involved in fighting in cote d'ivoire. and i call on the u.n., the french and quattara forces to halt immediately the death squads roving around the streets of abidjan, disappearing supporters of president gbagbo. i got a call from one friend down there that i would certainly not identify. they would murder him overnight. he was talking about how he couldn't go out. he could see bodies, corpses in the street. this was two days ago, and they couldn't go out there because they had snipers and they would mow them down. led by soldiers of quattara's rebel armies and supporters of the united nations that killed 40,000 people in addition to the thousands killed in the bombing we've already looked at. right now i have several friends who give me these reports. they're saying is there anything you can do now?

if they go in now after they killed all these people -- and i call upon again the united nations, the french which i know are not going to do it and certainly the quattara rebels, and our state department to go in and stop it. we could do it in no time at all. all this concern about libya, this is just as bad, but nobody cares. keep in mind, this is sub-sahara africa. so the streets are filled with the stench of rotting bodies. mr. president, i renew my call for hearings before the senate foreign relations committee into the bombings and killings by the u.n., french and kpwau kwau rebels -- and quattara rebels and voter fraud. i appreciate senator john kerry, his willingness to holding hearings. i've talked to the chairman of the subcommittee, chairman coons and ranking member isakson, and they have agreed to have these hearings. i'm anxious to get into this so

all the world can see. maybe we can stop this from happening again. i don't know. i also suggest that the united states step in to help and examine the possibility of seeking a place of exile for gbagbo outside of cote d'ivoire. the u.s. performed such a role before in 1986 under the reagan administration. haiti's baby dock duvalier was sent into exile. it happened before. the american government did it before. i'm asking them to do it again. take these people who are being maybe murdered at this moment. we don't know. we know they're being tortured. allow them to go into exile. this could be an important step toward the beginning process of reconciliation that the people of cote d'ivoire deserve. this is not about the gbagbos. it's about the modern-day return to french colonial imperialism. this time with the help of the united nations they were doing this. here's what my concern is.

cote d'ivoire has had a hard enough time trying to break free from the yoke of french colonialism from the days of president bougoi nebraska in 196 -- bougone in 1960. up to that time, the french virtually owned all the presidents. they are all right there with france. all you have to do is go through the streets of abidjan, what streets might be left -- i doubt there are many -- and you'll see that's happening. it's not just the gbagbos. any president on the african continent in sub-sahara africa should know this could just as well happen to them. and their ministers and their friends. and that's what's happening right now. i'm going to show you something here that i hesitated doing. but this is the happy face of

president gbagbo. this is the face i know. this is the president, he's been president since 2000. and he's gone through a lot of these same problems, but he stood up against the french and against quattara up in the north. now he's been captured, and i'll show you what he looks like today. this is three days ago. this is today. his face is beat in from the side. he's there, he's being held on this side by someone while they're mashing his face. then there's simone, his wife. i happen to know her very well. go ahead and put her picture up there. i remember, in my state of oklahoma, we had -- he's not there anymore -- we had a great congressman named j.c. watts. he was an african-american. he served in the house. and when simone came one time -- this is simone gbagbo -- she said, would you let me try to get me introduced to j.c. watts,

congressman watts? i said, yeah, i'd be glad to do it. i didn't know why. i went over and took her to the house of representatives -- we're in the senate and that was in the house. he was in a committee hearing. he came oufplt and i said -- he came out. i said i want to introduce you to someone, the first lady of cote d'ivoire. she put her arms around him and started crying. she said to him, will you forgive us. i said forgive you for what, j.c. watts said. because we're the ones who sold your brothers into slavery. in the united states of america, people walk around guilty, and they should, about the slavery they had. but in africa and particularly sub-sahara africa and west africa where most of the slave trade came from such as cote d'ivoire, they realize they are the ones who sold their brothers into slavery. here's simone begging j.c. watts to forgive her for selling them into slavery. at the district level she was

elected a member of parliament from her district. she was a leading way for developing a center for the care for orphans in her district. at a national level, simone gbagbo, first lady, nationwide program for women to get their products to market. no name for that program is yet found. on a continental level, organization of african first ladies, she was the head, first ladies against hiv-aids, a forum established for first ladies in dealing with that. that is who simone is. isn't she pretty? that was a week ago. let's see what she looks like today. you can't see it now. they have held her and pulled her hair out by the roots, and they went out in the streets and said this is the hair of simone gbagbo. i don't know what else they did to her. use your own imagination. now, who are these people? they are the the quattara forces.

do you think we just made that up? put the next one up. there they are. all of these are identified leaders of the quattara forces holding her. see what they're doing her. and beating her and pulling her hair out. and that's what's happening today. so i only would say -- and i'll conclude with this -- that our state department's got to wake up. you can't assume that the united nations is doing something that it's right. and we have to understand that there is this half of a continent called sub-sahara africa. and those people, their lives are worth just as much as they're worth in kosovo or bosnia or the united states or any of the other places where we go and we try to save lives. and so again i would say to any of our friends in, the presidents of any of the countries in sub-sahara africa -- put that back up. what has happened right here could very well happen to the

presidents or the first ladies of your countries. i only ask three things: number one, stop the firing that's going on right now. people are being murdered as we speak, madam president. stop it. we can do it. we've got the power to do it. our state department with the united nations can make it happen, in spite of what the french might want. and, number two, send them into exile. give them the dignity of living someplace else in sub-sahara africa, so that these people, so the people of africa will know. can you imagine what the people of cote d'ivoire will be thinking and doing in the near future if they allow this to go unanswered. that's my appeal to the united states state department, to the united nations, and to the french. with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president, there's no one else in the chamber now. they said that they had other

speakers lined up and when they come in, i'll be glad to yield the floor to them. in the mean time let me just make a couple of comments about the discussion of today that -- that everyone's addressing, the democrats and republicans. i've been here for a number of years. i have seen different administrations come through. i -- i think this is the first time the american people have finally woken up to the fact that we finally have gotten to a point where we can't continue to do as what we have been doing. when president obama came into office, he came up with a first budget and then the second budget and third budget. if you add the budgets up what he has done and he has successfully since he had total role of the house and senate to be able to pass these budgets. that he has added more debt to our national debt in two years than every president throughout in the history of this country every president from george washington to george w. bush. the -- i can remember coming to

this floor when i was outraged back in 1995, then president clinton came up to the budget -- came up with a budget and that budget was a $1.5 trillion. this budget that president obama has come out with is not just -- until a trillion and a half, it's $3.5 trillion and the deficit alone for this one year is greater than the entire budget was for the -- for the entire year of fiscal year 1996. and it can't happen. you can't continue to do that. consequently and i criticized some of my republican friends. a lot of them voted for th the $700 billion bailout. and then none of the republicans voted for the $800 billion stimulus package. and, you know, right now quibbling over well, can you really cut $6 billion or $60 billion from the budget and yet they passed a an $800 billion stimulus package. spending. it's never been done before in

the history of this country. it's got to stop now and i think we have -- i watched what paul ryan's doing over there. that's heavy lifting. that's tough, but he's talking about doing something that's very real. i see my good friend from utah has come in. with that, i will yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i thank my colleague and appreciate him. sometimes it amazes me how quickly debates change here in washington. at this time in 2009 president obama was riding high. heralded as the second coming of franklin roosevelt. his election was a sea change in the attitudes of american taxpayers. when his democratic predecessor came to congress and announced the era of big government is over, president obama came to washington convinced that the era of big government was just beginning with historic majorities in both houses of congress he and his capitol hill

allies set about the business of transforming the nation's economy with massive jolts of new government spending and regulation. they cultivated an unholy alliance with big labor, big business and big government and the hope for was a corporative states where government bureaucrats would calculate the fair share for the redistribution of policies. they exploded the growth of the federal government through ordinary appropriations and the stimulus. democrats hiked up non -- non-defense discretionary appropriations by 24% in the last two years. and by 84% if you count the stimulus bill. but as an american songwriter once put it, the times, they are changing. later this week we will be considering the continuing resolution that gives us to the end of fiscal year 2011. to hear the left talk, you would

think that this proposal shattered agencies left and right. they say we have cut discretionary spending to the bone. this, of course, is a little bit melodramatic. before the republicans won in november the federal government was on pace to spen spend $3.8 trillion. that's 3,800,000,000,000. and the c.r., the continuing resolution, we will vote on reduces spending by $38 billion. $38 billion in spending reductions from spending of $3,800,000,000,000. or $3.8 trillion. whichever you'd like. that's not exactly cutting to the bone. i agree with my a close who say we -- colleagues who say we need to reduce spending even more. facing our third consecutive year with more than a $1 trillion deficit, these cuts barely scratch the surface

of what needs to be done. but make no mistake about it, even these cuts would have been impossible if not for the republicans taking back the house and making gains in the senate last november. when republicans won they changed the debate in washington. even the press has been forced to acknowledge the depth of our fiscal crisis though old habits die hard. just this morning we witnessed the relapse in the mainstream media as it did its best to enable excessive spending. the headline on the front page of today's "washington post" screamed "cuts will affect vast spectrum of priorities." this made me think of the likely reporting at "the new york times" on the outbreak of a nuclear conflict. nuclear war breaks out, women and minorities hardest hit. i should not be too hard on the press. they seem to be getting it. there's certainly no denying.

it we are spending way more than we are taking in and absent of real reductions on spending and meaningful reforms to entitlements, this country is cruising toward a legitimate debt crisis that will adversely impact every american family. this desire to reduce spending and restore the constitution's limits on the size of government is the new normal for taxpayers. the obama administration's salad days when they dreamed of permanently expanding the size of the federal government are way back in the rear-view mirror. i notice the distinguished majority leader is here. if he needs to -- mr. reid: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: if my dear friend, the senior senator from utah, would allow me to interrupt him which he just agreed to do, i would ask that we be in a a period of morning business for debate only until 6:00 p.m. today senators permitted to speak for 10 minutes each and at 6:00 p.m. i be recognized. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. reid: madam president, i hope the record -- i ask consent that the record will not appear as i intd rupt my -- interrupted my friend from utah. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: again, i appreciate his normal courtesy that he has extended me for decades. i appreciate it very much. mr. hatch: i appreciate the majority leader. well, i said the obama administration salad days when they dreamed of expanding the federal government are way back in the rear-view mirror. because of the undeniable seriousness of our debt and deficits and the commitment of republicans to taking it on, the debate has shifted from how do we enlarge the size of government to how we can scale it -- how can we scale it back? the administration was slow to recognize this when given his first opportunity to weigh in on this crisis, the president voted present. his fiscal year 2012 budget was laughable for its failure to take on its deficits an growing debts.

the liberal "washington post" reporter could not carry the president's water on this one. even he he couldn't carry the president's water on this one. he wrote when reading the budget it's almost like the fiscal commission never happened. the president's fiscal commission recommended over $4 trillion in spending reductions including adjustments to entitlements. i can't say that i agree with everything in the commission's proposal, but it was a serious effort to get our nation's finances back in order. but the president chose to pretend that this report did not exist. well, since then, they must have done some polling over at the white house. they must have realized on the most critical issue facing the country, american taxpayers and american families want something more from their president. they want leadership. the president of the united states can't just sub-contract out these issues to other people. the president of the united states has to lead. and in these areas it takes the president.

he has to be bold. he has to take a stand. for all of the comparisons of president obama to abraham lincoln, franklin roosevelt and ronald reagan, those were not passive presidents. on the big issues they took big risks and they led the country. it seems the president's advisers have finally figured this out. they need to get involved in a serious way on the issue of federal spending. sitting back and adding nothing while your allies, demagogue solutions is not enough for the american people. democrats tried this tired line of attack this week alleging that republicans were out to hurt the poor, the disabled and the elderly. these smears really are beneath the dig grit of our elected -- dignity of our elected officials and show a total disregard for the sense of the american citizens and the good faith and

charity for those who support americans. he has a chance to do so tomorrow. the president's giving a much-hyped speech tomorrow on the issue of spending and getting our deficits and debt under control. i can only say that i hope that he comes through. the people of my home state of utah and the people of every state are demanding that washington tackle out-of-control spending. and vague outlines o statementsf principle are not going to do it. the president needs to take a stand or should i say stands. the american people don't want a solution to a spending crisis that involve higher taxes. it is not higher tax that's will give the government more money to spend. our problem is not that citizens are taxed too little. our problem is that government spends too much. so the president needs to come forward with serious, concrete

proposals and commit to working with congressman ryan, speaker boehner, and senate republicans to solve this problem. i'm willing to give the president a mull began on his first -- mulligan on his first budget proposal. the president, like members of congress, represent the people. as representatives of the people we must acknowledge those times when we get it wrong. when the people make it clear that they want their elected officials to go in a different direction in a democratic republic it is only right that the president and the congress give voice to their concerns. the president seems to understand that he got it wrong with his first budget. taxpayers and families want washington to take on spending. but the people will not be fooled. if the president comes out tomorrow and speaks in vague jen ratties -- generals, if he comes out to speak to congress, he will satisfy no one.

being president of the united states is not like being a law professor. it is not merely to facilitate dialogue. your job is to lead. i look forward to the president's remarks tomorrow. i guess we will call it the president's part two. my hope is that the sequel will be better than the original. with that, madam chairman, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: